"Glory Days"- A Review

The title "Glory Days" brings to mind something grand and sweeping; a tale of men who looked far back into their lives to see those times when they were at their peak. Instead, viewers were given a show about four 20-year-olds who are trying to cling to the time in High School when they were still friends.

The themes of the show are actually the strongest part. The thought that went into a plot that touched on friendship, change, acceptance, and the struggles we all face is certainly something that can touch us all. The show is somewhat silly, with great one-liners that leaves the audience laughing, but still overall misses it's mark. Such as it was, "Glory Days" would have been better to stick to their song lyrics, and name their show "Glory-type Days" and capture more of the ironic humor the writers seem to be strong in.

The lyrics and dialogue simply couldn't carry the plot far enough. Despite some good characters and strong acting- particularly by Andrew C. Call (Andy) and Jesse JP Johnson (Jack)- the show was distracted by the words trying too hard to be "normal." I admit that it is a hard thing to script actors "being average and just hanging out" but with a show dedicated almost exclusively to this idea, it falls far short, failing again to capitalize on the potential it has.

Each of the four characters was meant to represent someone we know, and of them all, Skip (played by Adam Halpin) did the best. I can think of three or four people in my life that fall perfectly into who he was. In fact, I thought that had he been the narrator instead of Will (Steven Booth) the show would have been a lot stronger. Call successfully made us believe his character's emotions, and left us again wishing that the script would have given us more of him and who he was.

The songs, again, had potential. Some of the lyrics were witty, and the song "Open Road" captured everything the writers wanted it to, but overall they just failed to reach the goal, making the audience feel like it needed more to be complete. Some of the melodies were strained, and it was often hard to tell whether the actors were falling short, or it was a symptom of musical direction, especially since overall the direction was weak.

The staging is hardly worth commenting about as it was negligible save for the fact that the floor (representing a football field) was painted white so anytime the green lighting lost you were taken out of the scene and staring at a white floor.

In the end, I was felt like I had watched one of my friend's artists sketches. I could tell that a lot of incredible elements were there, and couldn't wait to see the final product. Unfortunately for this show, this isn't a rough sketch, and therefore its potential isn't going to be realized.

Rickology

Sometimes these can be fun, so here's some of me.

MOUTHOLOGY

What is your salad dressing of choice?
Vinagrette or Honey Mustard

What is your favorite fast food restaurant of choice?
Chick-Fil-A no question.

What is your favorite sit-down restaurant?
Probably one of the little Italian mom and pops here in NYC, or nationwide, definitely Bravo.

On average how much of a tip do you leave at a restaurant?
20% or more. Unless they are REALLY bad.

What food could you eat every day for two weeks and not get sick of?
Italian.

What are your pizza toppings of choice?
Sausage and Mushrooms, or if at a good place, Chicken, Spinach and Mushrooms.

What do you like to put on your toast?
Peanut butter if I have toast. More likely to have a toasted bagel. =)


TECHNOLOGY

What is your wallpaper on your computer?
Blue abstract art.

How many televisions are in your house?
3 technically, but only 2 are hooked up.

What color cell phone do you have?
Black Mogul.


BIOLOGY

Are you right-handed or left-handed?
Ambidextrous in most things. Write with right still.

Have you ever had anything removed from your body?
6 Wisdom teeth.

What is the last heavy item you lifted?
Weights. Woot for buffing up.

Have you ever been knocked unconscious?
Not exactly. Close though.


BULLSHITOLOGY

If it were possible, would you want to know the day you were going to die?
Not sure. It would definitely put things into perspective, but then again it might make it hard to have certain things as well.

If you could change your name, what would you change it to?
I love my name. Never ever ever changing.

What color looks good on you?
I wear blue, but my friends and family say Red is great on me.

Would you never blog again for $50,000?
No. I love getting my opinions down, and plan to do it at least semi-professionally, so $50k wouldn't be worth it.

Would you pose naked in a magazine for $250,000
Yes.

Would you drink an entire bottle of hot sauce for $1000?
No.

Would you, without fear of punishment, take a human life for $1,000,000?
Nope


DUMBOLOGY

What is in your left pocket?
Keys and money.

Is Napoleon Dynamite actually a good movie?
Not so much.

Hardwood or carpet in your house?
Hardwood. Carpet is DIRTY!!

Do you sit or stand in the shower?
Stand. Do people sit in showers?

Could you live with roommates?
One. But he's cool.

How many pairs of flip flops do you own?
3. Cheap replicable, nice black ones and nice brown ones.

Last time you had a run-in with the cops?
Well, I see em everyday with their horses in Times Square, but they are nice to me. Speeding ticket was probably last bad time.

What do you want to be when you grow up?
Isn't that the question. I loved my businesses, but I think that I need a more interactive training/teaching-type "career" with business and writing on the side.

Who is number 1 on your top 8?
Auralie

Last Friend you talked to?
Bryan

Last person who called u?
Mi madre

Last person you hugged?
Chris (McCurley)


FAVORITOLOGY

Number?
12

Season?
Spring

Holiday?
My birthday.

Day of the week:
Saturday

Month?
May

CURRENTOLOGY

Missing someone?
Yep

Mood?
Pleased

Listening to?
French station on iTunes (American music though)

Watching?
People scamper about Times Square

Worrying about?
Job future


RANDOMOLOGY

First place you went this morning
Work

What can you not wait to do?
Settle into what I want

What's the last movie you saw?
Sweeney Todd

Do you smile often?
Yep. Makes even bad days better.

Issues Only

A friend of mine recently engaged me in an issues only debate for President. We used for our discussion the New York Times Election Guide (Here).

Here are my responses, with (based on this guide) a few surprises:

Abortion: Obama and Clinton, similar positions. Fed government should stay out of a woman’s personal life whenever possible.

C- Supports Roe v. Wade; opposes ban on partial-birth abortions; judges should protect women’s rights.

O- Supports Roe v. Wade; criticized Supreme Court decision that upheld ban on partial-birth abortions.

M- Wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, but has been supportive in the past; supported Supreme Court decision that upheld ban on partial-birth abortions; "strict constructionist judges."


Climate Change: No preference (they all say the same thing) though in my personal opinion, these plans are FAR from sufficient. I will give a nod to Obama for proposing Al Gore as an appointed position for dealing with this issue.

C- Supports a mandatory cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

O- Supports a mandatory cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

M- Supports a mandatory cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions.


Economy: Clinton. Clinton’s package is more well-rounded offering multiple levels of stimulation, while not falling into the standard Democratic trap of being a crutch. More like medicinal shots than a permanent hospital bed. (Obama is close on this one)

C- $70 billion plan to "jump start" the economy; repeal the Bush tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000. (The plan is outlines on NY Times).

O- Said his plan for tax relief to middle and working classes would help stabilize the economy; repeal the Bush tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000.

M- Short-term plan is long-term plan: make the Bush tax cuts permanent; eliminate alternative minimum tax.


Healthcare: Clinton. Healthcare goes towards a basic standard of living for people. In fact a small amount spent on preventative care through insurance would save billions in care down the road. Very few things should be provided by government, Healthcare is one of them. (Obama is close on this one)

C- Require everyone to get health insurance, subsidized by employers and the government; pay for it by rolling back tax cuts for households earning over $250,000 and savings in the existing system.

O- Require that all children have health insurance; pay for it by rolling back President Bush’s tax cuts for households earning over $250,000; aims for universal coverage.

M- For free-market, consumer-based system; has pledged affordable health care for every American without a mandate; says universal health care is possible without a tax increase.


Housing: Clinton. Clinton’s plan offers the most flexibility and with our current situation, affects the most people. Obama’s plan is too tightly focused to make enough of an impact, and McCain’s plan doesn’t take into account that housing is a constant and long-term issue.

C- Extend at least $30 billion to states to help homeowners; extend F.H.A.’s capacity to guarantee restructured mortgages; 90-day moratorium on foreclosures and freeze subprime rates for at least 5 years.

O- Create new F.H.A. program to make it easier to convert subprime loans to fixed-rate, 30-year loans; create a fund to help people avoid foreclosures; require better disclosure from lenders.

M- Opposes large-scale federal assistance; any assistance "should be temporary" and "focused on homeowners"; opposes lower down payment on F.H.A. mortgages; lenders should help borrowers.


Immigration: No preference. All adhere to same plan. It is far too difficult for legitimate immigrants to be here, and that should be addressed foremost.

C- Supports a path to legalization for illegal immigrants that includes learning English and paying fines; toughen penalties for hiring illegal immigrants; voted for fence along Mexican border.

O- Supports a path to legalization for illegal immigrants that includes learning English and paying fines; toughen penalties for hiring illegal immigrants; voted for fence along Mexican border.

M- Supports a path to legalization for illegal immigrants that includes learning English and paying fines; voted for fence along Mexican border.


Iran: McCain. I know, surprising, but he is the most likely to use international support, which is what we constantly fail to do. Both the Democratic plans are very "Big Brother" whereas McCain is at least attempting a more "whole family" approach.

C- Direct diplomacy without preconditions; use economic sanctions; would not meet with the Iranian president; military option not off the table, but would not consider without congressional approval.

O- Engage in direct diplomacy; tighten economic sanctions with international cooperation; would meet with the Iranian president with no preconditions; military option not off the table.

M- Form an alliance with European countries to put economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran; no unconditional diplomacy; military option not off the table, but would consult with leaders of Congress.


Iraq: Obama (Clinton close second). Note that they have similar positions, but Obama’s plan is faster and more immediate, and I am NOT holding Clinton’s vote against her, as given the amount of false information presented to congress, many votes went different than they would have otherwise.

C- Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, now opposed; opposed troop increase; start phased withdrawal within 60 days of taking office, with the goal to have most troops out by the end of 2013.
O- Opposed invasion from the beginning; opposed troop increase; withdraw one or two brigades a month to finish within 16 months.

M- Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, still supportive; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal.

10:04 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit -

Don't disown your little voice

I was reading through my daily blogs (both friends’ and national ones) and came across a big discussion that talked about emotional intelligence, and EQ.

Most things about EQ I definitely agree with. I think that an emotional intelligence is in many ways as important as IQ, but for some reason these people decided to bring up something that bothers me a lot: Internal Noise.

Many different people and organizations have taken to the idea that internal noise is bad. One individual said, "Just about everyone has noise inside their head. It’s a noise that keeps them from being rational, that forces them to avoid the simple truths sometimes, that makes them unable to take a shortcut when a long (more emotional one) is available."

When I participated in Landmark, I was constantly told that the voice in my head was always negative and held me back from my potential. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am all about people meeting their maximum potential. What I don’t think is that people’s internal voice is "bad."

In case you are confused about what I mean by internal voice, I mean when you hear yourself talk internally. A lot of times I hear this referred to, it is to say something bad. As in "you aren’t good enough" or "look how fat you are." Funny, but my voice has never said bad things to me. I don’t think that it has anything to do with confidence either. When I was younger, I had lots of confidence issues, and even then, I don’t think that it was my "little voice" that contributed to it.

Interestingly enough considering the afore mentioned quote, it is often my internal voice that is what helps me make rational and logical decisions. It is my internal voice that lets me think things through and in many cases can build my confidence and override my more negative instinctual reactions.

I am really happy that there are a lot of people and organizations out there that are trying to better people and help them become more fully actualized and more effective and fulfilled individuals. What I am not ok with is the idea that people will be turned against the very thing that can be the most powerful and vital tool at their disposal.
People who offer advice can often find it easy to place blame. Their audience loves it because it gives them a chance to blame "something" be it their past, their internal voice, whatever rather than own up to their own flaws. In my experience it is your flaws that can bring out your greatest strengths, and only by accepting all of yourself, and not trying to tune out and short circuit parts of ourselves can we actually grow as people.

"Forced" a response

If any of you have been living in a cave, Lawrence King as a gay JUNIOR HIGH student, murdered a while ago. Today, this article was published:

Gay Tolerance

Schools overplay gay tolerance
Lazarus Austin
Lazarus Austin is a junior majoring in history. He can be contacted at opinion@reflector.msstate.edu.

In February, Lawrence King was shot to death at E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard, Calif. What sets his murder apart from others is that King was openly gay. He often flirted with his fellow male students and wore feminine apparel and accessories. His murder has brought onslaughts of paranoia and calls for tolerance by gay rights advocates.

According to The Washington Post, gay rights advocates are claiming that King’s murder is the "extreme consequence of a growing but often ignored phenomenon." The phenomenon they are referring to is homophobia.

As a result, they are calling for more tolerance education in schools and stricter anti-harassment rules. Many middle schools and high schools are opening gay and lesbian clubs for students. Other schools are openly teaching students about homosexuality at an early age, often at the frustration of parents.

Furthermore, schools are cracking down on bullying. They, of course, do not want bullies harassing people with a different religious belief, sexual preference, race or gender.

I have two problems with the controversy. First, people are blowing the situation out of proportion and automatically assuming King’s murderer killed him simply because King was gay. This reminds me of how people love to cry racism when someone kills a person of a different race.

His alleged murderer, Brandon McInerney, 14, and also an eighth-grader, had a rough upbringing. According to The Washington Post, McInerney’s parents divorced in 2002. His mother dealt with drug issues, the father had been accused of shooting his mother in the elbow, both parents had filed restraining orders against the other and both had been accused of domestic violence. Supposedly, McInerney was a good kid in school, so the results of his upbringing are hard to judge. However, if you ask me, McInerney was probably a fuse ready to explode, and King’s fraternization possibly sparked it, which brings me to my second point.

By imposing his homosexuality on McInerney, he may have set McInerney off. McInerney may not have had an innate hatred of gay people. In fact, he may have tolerated homosexuality, while simultaneously thinking it was immoral, sinful or simply "uncool," like many people do. King, however, may have gone too far by imposing his sexuality on others. Although King by no means deserved his fate, he may have unfortunately invited it.

Now, gay rights advocates would like to force their homosexuality on others and promote tolerance in schools. Doesn’t sound so bad, does it? The problem lies in their methods. Many of them, by teaching tolerance, also teach values, whether intentionally or not. In 2006, one school was sued because one of its teachers read a famous children’s book advocating homosexuality called "King & King" without parental permission to 7-year-olds.

"My problem," said the suing parent, according to a transcript of "American Morning" on CNN.com, "is that this issue of romantic attraction between two men is being presented to my 7-year-old as wonderful, and good and the way things should be."

The focus should be on targeting harassment, not tolerance per se. Some people may think gay people are immoral or, as Michael Venyah would put it, "going to hell." Promoting tolerance can instill in children’s minds moral and religious values. Furthermore, it can make them think that homosexuality is the norm and, in my opinion, encourages them to be gay, which is OK but not something schools should be promoting. If at all, tolerance should formally be taught at the upper grade levels, starting at high school.

Some gay rights advocates would have homosexuals permeate society, from TV shows and films to teachers and bishops. I say just let people be gay, don’t forcefully stick them in everybody’s faces and in the limelight.

King sounds like he was a good kid, and what McInerney did was absolutely unjustifiable. However, some want to use King as a martyr for the wrong reasons. Gay people should and do have just as many rights as the rest of us, but no more. Minorities shouldn’t get special privileges, only equal privileges. However, murderers, including those of gay people, should get a special privilege, the privilege of rotting their lives away in prison where they deserve to be.


Of course having read that, I had no choice, but to write a letter to the editor in response. Here it is:

Regarding Lazarus Austin’s article, "Schools overplay gay tolerance" I must say that this letter is, dare I say, forced, by Austin’s misguided words.

The most surprising thing about reading Austin’s article, was the following to the bi-line that said he was a history major. One who studies history should surely see the faulty logic that was displayed throughout the article.

Interestingly enough, I would not necessarily disagree with his first "problem with the controversy." It is entirely possible that the child’s upbringing had more to do with him becoming a murderer than his innate homophobia. The interesting thing is that he follows that up with refuting his own argument, by saying it was a "hate crime," but because he felt that King "forced his sexuality on him." You can’t have it both ways. Either it was a murder based on hate or it wasn’t. Whether or not King "invited" it is a different issue entirely.

As for the "forcing" issue, this is one of the most obtuse arguments a person can make. I mean that thusly:
We do not consider a guy flirting with a girl "forcing" their sexuality, yet if this girl happens to be gay, by Austin’s rules, he is indeed forcing his sexuality. One could equally make the same argument for forcing all children go to "traditional" sex education. Any gay children are instantly having straight sexuality being forced upon them. Similar arguments exist for any type of affection, etc. which is viewed as fine when it is a guy and a girl, but "forced" when it is two guys or two girls.

Lastly is the biggest disappointment of all. As a history major, Austin should know, that you cannot reduce crimes of intolerance (of which bullying and hate crimes both fall into) without teaching tolerance. No group in history has stopped "picking on" (also seen as murdering or enslaving in the historical sense) without the oppressors learning tolerance. It is a fallacy to think that you can reduce bullying in schools without teaching tolerance.

The argument about saying that gay people can be happy and "right" is teaching morals of course would go back to my earlier double standard argument. Allow me a moment of intesnse sacrcasm to point out that if you can’t show gay people as happy, please, don’t allow movies that show a person making a mistake and being redeemed, don’t correct children when they make a mistake, don’t share personal aspects of your life with your class, as I am sure, all of these, simply by existing show morality, and we certainly wouldn’t want that.

-Rick Raven